Dru said:
Although I know your theory and mine don't exactly coincide, UKGuy, I do think we're kind of on the same page.
When I first got interested in this case I was more or less PDI, and I found the different accident theories plausible.
What changed it for me was the sexual wound inflicted before JBR died.
I could see a parent 'losing it' and going for a child. I could see a parent staging a crime scene to cover up that fact.
But I couldn't see a parent, for no apparent reason, inflicting a sexual wound on the child sometime between the initial assult and death, while the child is still alive!
There are only two motives possible for inflicting that wound at that time. If it had been inflicted after she was dead it might have been staging, but it wasn't.
The first motive is that the killer wants some kind of perverse gratificaton from the act. Notice, he's still injuring a dying child--there's simply no possible way that this wound was inflicted on JBR while she was alive, as it would have been extremely painful and she would have shown signs of struggling against it, signs which are absent from her body. This motive is really only plausible in the 'unknown intruder' theory; a parent, having accidently or purposely given the child a fatal head injury, isn't going to stop for a little 'fun' when there's so much cover-up to arrange.
The second, and more likely motive, is that the killer wants to confuse and contaminate evidence of prior abuse. I tend to believe that this makes it highly likely that the abuser is the killer, but I won't go into that now.
Either way, though, it just doesn't square with most of the accident theories, and neither does the condition of the body as you described it in an earlier post on this thread.
The initial blow might not have been premeditated in the strict legal sense of the term. But I think someone was finding JBR to be an increasing 'problem,' and was actually getting quite worried about someone finding out. Maybe he'd even thought about killing her.
So when the killer found himself provoked by something JBR said or did, and struck her, it wasn't something that hadn't occurred to him before, IMO. Means were at hand, motive had been present for a while, and now there was opportunity. And he took it.
Dru,
Thanks for your points, and agree there does appear to be something of a consensus between us.
PDI is a distinct possibility and for some an emotional certainty given Patsy's subsequent behaviour and statements.
I dont discount a PDI, but from the apparent evidence or inconsistencies that are used to incriminate Patsy, it does not follow that she was the one who killed JonBenet.
Also the sexual assault may come in two parts e.g. immediately prior to her death and as staging afterwards. Bear in mind Coroner Meyer's remarks regarding digital penetration, imo this was a reference to a prior sexual assault. Coroner Meyer need not have made that remark, he could left everyone to assume the paintbrush was the sole cause!
The wine-cellar staging incorporates some of the most important forensic evidence and potentially, for those new to the case, some of the most confusing, which can lead to erroneous conclusions, simply because it is not only bad practise to use fake forensic evidence to generate theories and conclusions regarding peoples guilt or lack of, it is also fallacious.
e.g. Patsy's fibers are embedded into the garrote so she killed JonBenet and staged a homicide!
So I guess the PDI rationale goes something like this, Patsy is a mother, so she would never intentionally kill her own treasured 6-year old daughter, so it must have been an accident, this is then backed up with references to Steve Thomas'
Toilet Rage theories or some variant thereof.
Since I have demonstrated that Steve Thomas'
Toilet Rage theory is actually inconsistent with the current forensic evidence, the scaffolding supporting PDI is removed leaving the initial sentiment regarding the maternal instinct.
These two distinct elements are both flawed, but combined together make a strong emotional case for PDI.
While if you simply look, and I emphasise look, since you can view the autopsy photographs of her fractured skull, and read her itemised injuries in the autopsy report, these injuries are not those of an accident, any other case with those injuries would be classified as a homicide.
The initial blow might not have been premeditated in the strict legal sense of the term. But I think someone was finding JBR to be an increasing 'problem,' and was actually getting quite worried about someone finding out. Maybe he'd even thought about killing her.
It may not have been planned but it may have been premeditated, on this aspect I am less certain than that it was no accident.
Not only was it no accident but both parents and a son colluded in the subsequent staging and cover up, why should that be?
Those that have followed the case will recognize there is something missing, but they are not sure what it is, e.g. the staging, the accident theories and the forensic evidence do not match up, why should that be?
Bear in mind the PDI logic, a homicide was staged therefore the cause of death was accidental, also there is evidence of a sexual assault therefore it was staged.
As I have remarked before you dont stage an accidental death with a homicide, maybe you rearrange the crime-scene evidence to suggest a non-intentional accident, but you do not offer yourself up to the prosecuter as a domestic homicide. That is if only one person killed JonBenet all those involved run the risk of guilty homicide verdicts as they blame each other in any ensuing court case, with the procurator alleging you cannot believe any of them, they all conspired to kill JonBenet, and are now blaming each other!
Many homicides are staged as accidents though, as are rage assaults on children within the home, so it may be more helpful to consider JonBenet's death as a homicide with subsequent staging to mask the initial cause of death.
.
